Prevent repeat slice length overflow#9819
Merged
alamb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom Apr 25, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Dandandan
approved these changes
Apr 25, 2026
19 tasks
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks (again) @Dandandan |
scovich
reviewed
Apr 27, 2026
| .expect("repeated slice byte length overflow"); | ||
| self.len | ||
| .checked_add(repeated_bytes) | ||
| .expect("mutable buffer length overflow"); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't love introducing panics (tho clearly that's better than UB).
Any possibility to make this API more robust?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be fine to add another function like try_repeat_slice_n_times... that returned a Result for those that wanted it
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
MutableBuffer repeated slices used unchecked usize arithmetic when calculating the number of bytes to reserve. In optimized builds, very large repeat counts could wrap the capacity calculation before copying repeated bytes.
What changes are included in this PR?
This adds checked arithmetic for repeated slice byte length validation before reserving capacity and copying repeated data.
Are these changes tested?
Yes. This adds regression coverage for overflowing repeated slice length calculations.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Invalid repeat counts whose requested byte length cannot be represented without overflow now panic consistently. There are no API changes.